ASEAN ministers come together to debate over child labour with proposals similar to Japan’s

ASEAN ministers debating about the limitations of vocational training in tackling child labour in ASEAN countries at the Singapore Management University (SMU), Singapore, on June 16, 2025. (Kyodo)

At this year’s ASEAN Ministerial Meeting on Social and Welfare Development (AMMSWD), the topic of child labour dominated the discussion table. While ASEAN member states have made strides in economic development, child exploitation remains a challenge. Delegates from across Southeast Asia, along with several partner nations, met to exchange ideas, confront gaps in current policy, and reflect on how to protect the region’s most vulnerable: its children. 

From the outset, it was clear that delegates weren’t just approaching the issue as bureaucrats or lawmakers, but as people reckoning with realities on the ground. For many countries, child labour isn’t just a legal concern but something that is tied to deep-rooted economic and cultural systems. And because of that, the solutions were equally varied, with some nations calling for targeted, immediate reforms while others urged longer-term social shifts. 

Singapore took a more pragmatic approach. Rather than aiming for sweeping promises of free education for all, a goal that remains out of reach for many ASEAN countries, it advocated for blending formal education with part-time vocational training. This, delegates suggested, could help teenagers who are already in the workforce gain safer skills and reduce their exposure to dangerous labour. 

Russia supported this proposal, adding that working children should be officially registered to ensure they receive legal protection. While some saw merit in this, others raised concerns: does formalising child labour risk normalising it? 

Thailand leaned heavily on the idea of vocational schools that offer training and internships with vetted companies. By giving children an alternative to unregulated jobs, these programs could provide crucial skills for children to find jobs with a safer working environment. 

Vietnam, however, warned against putting too much faith in vocational schemes. Without strict oversight, such programs could be misused—subsidies meant to support education might end up enabling exploitation instead. The delegate also proposed a ‘PHO’ framework, standing for protection of rights, hours of child labour, and an opportunity to learn. 

Meanwhile, Australia introduced a broader view. Child labour, they reminded the room, may also rise as a gender issue. In many communities, girls are disproportionately pushed into domestic work due to lower female wages and entrenched gender norms. Any solution that overlooks this dimension, they argued, will fall short. 

Cambodia shifted the conversation to the language of the law. The current legal definition of “child domestic labour,” they argued, is too vague. Without clear guidelines, enforcing protections becomes nearly impossible. 

On a different front, Indonesia suggested focusing less on policy and more on people. They proposed a community-driven campaign spanning six months, involving outreach workers, media, and volunteers. The idea is simple but powerful: change minds on the ground, not just laws in the books. 

The United States echoed that sentiment. While legislation is important, they argued, real change often comes from within communities through trust and education. 

Laos introduced a tech-oriented solution. Teachers, they proposed, should have access to digital tools that help them flag warning signs like fatigue or absenteeism—both indicators a student may be working long hours outside of school. To support families directly, they also floated the idea of food vouchers, hoping to ease the financial pressure that often leads to child labour in the first place. 

Interestingly, Japan’s own history offers a valuable parallel. In the aftermath of World War Two, Japan faced its own crisis of child labour, particularly in farming and textile industries. It wasn’t a single policy that turned things around, but a combination of accessible education, labour law enforcement, and sustained economic growth. Over time, these factors pushed child labour to the margins. Today, through organisations like JICA, Japan lends technical and financial support to countries still grappling with these issues, offering a model that balances development with rights protection. 

Despite differing viewpoints, all countries at the table agreed on one thing: the current situation is unsustainable. Millions of children across the region are still being denied a childhood and an education just because they can be exploited for work. 

There are no silver bullets here. Vocational training may offer relief, but only when paired with strong oversight and community support. Legal reforms matter, but they must be backed by resources and political will. Cultural attitudes will take time to change. But change, as this meeting showed, is no longer just a hope but a shared responsibility. 

And while there’s still a long way to go, the discussions in this meeting have marked a meaningful first step. Because when nations talk seriously about protecting children—not just with words, but with action—something important shifts. As a result, a path forward begins to take shape.

Written by Yu Ho Lam Winston, Xie Zhenyue Dora, and Aidan Ng (Huang Qirui)